In the barouche box, not on the box.

@@ellicooper2323 p

@@ellicooper2323 even facing backwards for an entire journey in the barouche box would be pretty uncomfortable.

@Simon Ari she won't be your girlfriend for long...jerk...why didn't you ask her to see it!?????

@Jonathan Parks yep, they're right that it was a sign of Lady Catherine's backhanded generosity, but it wasn't quite as gauche as making Lizzie sit where the lady's maid was supposed to sit

As an English teacher, I TOALLY agree with you!!!!

I feel this especially hard having been a student in the UK, because my experience a few years ago was that we weren't even being taught to do the analysis ourselves. We were just kind of told 'these specific points are what you should be taking from the text, parrot them back in your exam' - and imo that not only removes the opportunity to feel interest in the story for entertainment's sake, it misrepresents what literary analysis is actually *supposed* to be, and denies kids even the chance to form a genuine interest in it.

The best English prof I ever had (I was a major) insisted we read Shakespeare out loud! He said the words were never written to be read silently. Amazing what a difference it makes in understanding the plays! The entire class would catch on at the same time and we’d go back and RE-READ with our new found comprehension! It was magic!!! WE were getting it ON OUR OWN not being spoon fed someone else’s ideas! When my kids were learning THE BARD I’d have us all read aloud at home. It makes a HUGE difference!!!!

@@robinholbrook6576 I find Shakespeare out loud difficult to follow. I'm lulled by the sound of the language. But I can read it just fine. I've often heard just what you said and we also read out loud in class. But I gleaned more reading at home alone.

lol I love this!

I am so sorry about your son. Reading this post, however, reminds me of the timeless power of stories, both the stories that your son (and you and I) love as well as his own life story. Keep in touch and happy reading:)

@@jaypawlyk3020 thank you and I will.

Sorry for your loss.

I don't even understand how anyone who read the book wouldn't know this, much less someone who is explaining the book in a video! There is discussion right in the beginning of the book stating that Mr. and Mrs. Bennett were so sure they'd have a son, that they didn't even attempt to save money in case it didn't happen. Moreover, it's stated that Mrs. Bennett stubbornly refuses to understand how an entailment works, no matter how many times her daughters try to explain it to her. She is resentful that Mr. Collins will inherit the estate. As you said, Mr. Bennett didn't and wouldn't have entailed the estate away from his daughters. It's presented as a condition that is beyond anyone's control.

I remember reading on some Jane Austen fansite that the entail had to be renewed annually. So, I assume that Mr. Bennet always did this thinking he would eventually have a son, who would eventually break the entail when he came of age at 21.

@@Rathana81 Annually means every year. Wouldn't mr. Bennet have stopped already if that was the case?

So, don't we know if an entailment can be challenged after a few decades or so?

More information on entails here. Important in Jane Austen and also Downton Abbey. Where there was a title, always going to the next male heir. And the money supporting the estate, apparently set up as an entail when Cora, with her American fortune, married into the family. Of course there would be a son! Inheriting titles is pretty standard, with some Scotswomen allowed to inherit a title. But entails came in many varieties.l www.google.com/amp/s/janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-fee-entail-in-pride-prejudice/amp/

I hear you. I ALWAYS resist looking at texts according 1 idea of theme. I hear you. I was just making a point about how this concern is important in this novel Thanks!

I think you are quite right. Jane Austen writes about - among other things - the lives and concerns of unmarried women throughout their from the Bennet sisters to Miss Bates (as examples). She would have understood these concerns from her own life.

Yeah, and also "don't be a dick". There's a strong message to that effect in nearly all of them.

A commentary on society and the financial stress women were under IS a commentary on marriage. Then and now.

Over 70% of fiction readers are now women and the number is rapidly increasing. And on book tube that's about the ratio of women to men reviewers.

I love discussing Austen with blokes. I've read all of her novels a minimum of five times. It's interesting that she was extremely popular with World War One trench soldiers.

as another "guy" I will confess to having read the book and watched of the movie. And fyi, unlike the video "presenter" I was never a literature major, actually a science geek. The '85 version by the BBC is outstanding, though the movie with Keira Knightly was great too because, well, it was Keira Knightly (proof that yes, I'm all guy).

I’m an older bloke and I really enjoy Jane Austen’s novels and particularly Pride and Prejudice. We have much to learn from her use of language.

The Prince Regent himself liked Jane Austen's novels. And Gilbert Ryle, an important philosopher from the mid-twentieth century, when asked if he read novels, is said to have replied, "Yes, I re-read all six every year," referring to Jane Austen's novels.

Bennett with two Ts - for goodness sake!!! We don't talk to the Bennet's with one T!

@@georgebennett3197 - yeah we do, we really do

Charlotte is the most sensible character in the book

I don't think there's any reason to think Charlotte would want to keep the Bennets on. The Lucases are a large family and as Mrs Bennet notes, the day after the engagement they're already measuring for new drapes. What Charlotte is really doing by swooping in on Mr Collins is a little social climbing. Mrs Bennet and Mary are lucky Elizabeth and Jane are marrying well enough to keep them, if Mr Bennet predeceases them.

Actually Charlotte’s only hope of marrying, as at 27 she was already well over the marriageable age. A woman had no future unless she married, which is why marrying was such a grimly pursued goal. She took her chance n desperation, at least she would have a respectable home and security.

I fixed the video description :)

Was going to add that, it's a part of the estates inheritances laws, which would have been made by an ancestor of theirs to keep it in their family. Probably by someone that forgot sometime only girls happen, and no fosight into if you inherit the property, you also have to see to the affairs of your inherited family (like housing, dowries etc...) no completely and utterly not thinking about that situation. Though it does make we wonder what stops sons from kicking out their sisters and mothers once they inherit?

It was the law also.

Yeah , sometimes sons just don't happen ! Terribly amazing law ! Poor girls , poor women !

@@Sovereignty3 Which is what happens (pretty much) in Sense and Sensibility

Thanks for the feedback!

@Jonathan Parks I don't disagree with this, and you can almost see a splitting of means and ends between the parents. Mr. Bennett is clearly the more intelligent of the two, but is frankly lazy (probably due in no small part because of his intelligence). Mrs. Bennett has a lot of energy and knows what her family needs, but as you point out is terrible at execution of this.

@Jonathan Parks I disagree with your first remark, and offer an explanation for the second. But first, let me copy and paste a quote from the book. Mrs. Bennet: When you have five daughters, Lizzie, tell me what else will occupy your thoughts, and then perhaps you will understand. ... A daughter's future is made by her marriage, and it is up to a mother to ensure that she secures the best place she possibly can.” Mrs Bennett, being bitterly aware that she produced no male heirs, is worried that her eldest will never marry which may in turn sour future husbands for the rest of the girls. Though we only have a snapshot of her in the books' window of time; I think it's reasonable to conclude, as evidence by the previous quote, that everything she does is in an effort to ensure that her girls have a secure future and protection. I see no idiocy in that. Since it's a small community of class, no doubt all other single eligible males are either recently married, too young, or unfit by either class or fortune. Thus leaving these five girls in a very precarious position, with no respite in sight. Much of this novel seems to be told from Lizzy's perspective. And as such I think it's important to remember that she's not much older than 15, and as we all know 15 to 20 something year old girls are eternally embarrassed by their parents, especially by their mother's antics. It's very possible that everything that Mrs. Bennett does is being seen thru that filter. If her behavior were truly socially unacceptable, no doubt the family would be snubbed socially. Now for the second. Mrs. Bennett is simply seeking a proper union as what befits their status. Plus, what parent doesn't delight in the ability to embarrass their children over exceptionally mundane things? And who's to say that driving those others off wasn't intentional? All you have is a teenage girl's inexperienced impression of her mother. My own daughter wanted to crawl in a hole and die when I made her stand beside me when we returned an item to the store. I was trying to teach her how to do it but she couldn't set past the cute guy at the counter. It was hilarious. I hope all of this makes sense. It's 4 am, I've got insomnia, and ADHD... so focusing hard even this long is tough. 🙂

@Jonathan Parks I imagine it would be difficult to navigate the social obstacle course when you are raised to believe you don't need to think.

@Jonathan Parks I would have to agree with your assessment here. Her goals and anxiety are certainly understandable, but her methods betray a lack of awareness and maturity. Another telling quote regarding her character flaws is the sad and touching line from Mr. Bennet to Elizabeth as he tries to be sure of her love and respect for Darcy: "Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage. You could scarcely escape discredit and misery. My child, let me not have the grief of seeing YOU unable to respect your partner in life. You know not what you are about." He may not be a perfect father, certainly. But, I always found this line moving as he tries to ensure that Elizabeth's marriage is happier than his own has been.

Perfectly stated:)

Funny, my experience was very similar! I had to read it when I was 16 as it was a set text for English class at school. I struggled through it, getting caught on the archaic language. Didn't grasp the humour. Resented having to analyse it. A few years later after finishing school, I picked it up again. Loved it! I "Got" it then, like I hadn't before. Found it much easier and more enjoyable to read.

This was my first experience and I stopped reading after Chapter 20. Picked the book up yesterday and bursted out by Mr. Bennet's conversation with his wife: "I have a high respect for your nerves. They have been my best friend."

Great point:)

Social satire to a degree. But no-one mentions the political situations. Napoleon Buonaparte, the French Revolution, battles, wars, or social stuff. Were they so shallow? Or was it all winnowed by Jane Austen, being considered too boring, or trivial to put into the characters' conversations.

I appreciate this - thank you:)

Great point. I had about 90m more of notes but didn't want the presentation to go too long. Maybe in a future one, this will be a focus? Thanks for the feedback:)

@@jaypawlyk3020 I for one would welcome a second video covering what you didn't have time for in this one!

@@missbeans That's really kind. Right now I am researching for a book I hope to write on teaching the Odyssey in the 21st Century. I have an Odyssey playlist of videos (including a preview of each chapter). (kzfaq.info/sun/PLfvrwGYLgbipGcDmahXugOlVKwnhx3A3S) I wouldn't mind someday doing more of a deep dive into each chapter of P&P. Thanks for the suggestion:)

I was about to say the same thing

But he was the executor ?

@@ladynataliemarie7780 No. The executor would probably be some law company into whose trust the entail would have been put. Mr Bennet was the beneficiary. He inherited it but it was a condition of his inheritance to produce a male heir to whom he could pass it on. He obviously tried many times, he had five daughters but gave up after that. On his death, his son would have moved into the house and the girls would have either lived in the house or been given cottages on the estate, supported by their brother had they not married. The other thing Bennet could have done was to move to a smaller place, rent out Longbourn and save money and invest so that his family would have a more secure future. It is possible he didn't do that because his wife couldn't even understand the principle of an entail, so would not have understood that it was not the best strategy for his family to live like landed gentry with such low financial resources to back them. It seems that he was a nice chap who married foolishly, liked his library and didn't plan much.

Yes - that was an oversight of mine. I edited the description on the video :)

Mr. Bennet married for money. Mrs. Bennet had twice his income. It's made much of in the book how different their two characters are, and said once that she had been very appealing in her youth, but I don't doubt that money was his primary interest.

The 1995 adaptation is the best by a mile and Jennifer Ehle is lovely as Elizabeth. But I have to say that I was mesmerized by Elizabeth Garvie’s performance in the lack luster 1980 adaptation as well. The only problem I ever had with Jennifer’s portrayal was that it was obvious that she wasn’t keen on Darcy at all so his marriage proposal makes it look like he’s the epitome of arrogance without any awareness (which I love as she utterly destroyed him with her rejection). Garvie was more subtle, but don’t get me wrong, the 1980 version is just lack luster with many stilted and cringeworthy theatrical performances. Can’t hold a candle to 1995.

I like the 1995 miniseries too! It was exactly how I pictured it in my mind ( with the costumes and the houses etc) and they (thankfully), stuck closely to the book!

While I agree that Jennifer Ehle's interpretation is the best, we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that Elizabeth was 20. Jennifer Ehle was 28 at the time and looked it!

1980 version is the best

@@michaelodonnell824 agree - Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslett also has similar problem with ages of actresses vs ages of characters

Thanks! Best explanation! I've read this book several times and overlooked this simple fact... And Mary is very lonely in this family - the parents, Lizzy/Jane and Kitty/Lydia. And in same danger like Charlotte, if there is no second "Mr. Collins"...

For the next era, after Austen died, read "Middlemarch" . Also brilliant characterizations.

I like Mr Bennett’s dry sense of humour..His affection for Elizabeth is shown in every conversation between them and does him great credit.

@Vera Mae - I see Mr. Bennet a little differently. He seems to me to be a man who has just given up. I think he was someone who tried at the beginning of his marriage - otherwise, I don't think Jane and Elizabeth would have grown up to be so sensible and caring about others. There was supposed to be a son, so he didn't think about saving money until it was really too late to do anything about it. By the time we meet him, I think he had realized several years before that all the decisions he had made were mistakes that couldn't be rectified, and he gave up and retreated into himself as much as he could. But, I definitely agree with Lady Catherine in that he should have insisted on a governess for his daughters! Maybe that would have helped with them, anyway.

Yes, Mary was stuck between two older sisters and two younger ones. She became her own person because she was basically forgotten by her mother. She was also the plainest looking but didn't seem bothered by it like the others would have been. Singing and playing piano was NOT her skill though.

Wow.

Very interesting!

She only received the remaining dowry if there was any left; the husband didn't have to respect the longevity of his wife's life after his death.

very Interesting.

OK, didn't know origin of word dowager. Makes sense.

@Jonathan Parks I would agree. Everytime I reread her work, I find something new I never noticed before, such as when Mrs. Norris and Dr. Grant argue at the dinner table over an apricot tree in Mansfield Park. The symbolism of Mrs. Norris being like a tree full of bad fruit was delicious to perceive.

@@mrs.manrique7411 Intriguing!

For sure. No English literature class I had in college can hold a candle to this presentation. So useful, clear and accessible. There are tons of interesting videos about Jane Austen on You Tube. Don't miss Lucy Worsley videos about Jane Austen's homes. She travels around England showing all those mansions. It's a privilege to be able to watch all this at home, and practically for free.

I agree! I wish my English teachers would give historical backgrounds to a novel. I remember reading Wuthering Heights in AP English (back in the “90’s) and I didn’t know what a “moor” was.

@@alyssasmith6010 Moor..?

Yorkshire Moors, Ilkley Moor.

Great point!

I did some reading on that and the estate actually could have gone to Mary but it would have taken literally an act of parliament which is apparently not as absurd as it sounds but would have been extremely unusual and a bit difficult

@@CheshirePhrog Very Interesting

You are correct. Only I was an Army.officer and I am no gentleman. (*_*)

At some periods soldiers were scorned, in other times they were honored. Sorry, I can’t tell you precisely when/why but the officers who defeated Napoleon would have been more likely to be respected - until there were too many of them and they became a source of social unrest.

@@TheSuzberry Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, Hero of Spain and Waterloo, once said, "The conscription calls out a share of every class - no matter whether your son or my son - all must march; but our friends - I may say it in this room - are the very scum of the earth… people talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having bastard children - some for minor offences - many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really Is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are." suggesting that the British Army were nothing but beggars and scums and when seen action, they become heroes, and then later, they revert back to being scums and so forth; which was his remark after his soldiers ravaged Vittoria after winning it. Almost just like what you're trying to say, I believe?

Generally , officers came from the gentleman class . usually it was the second or third son whose colors were bought as that usually was the only financial sustenance that was his . Perhaps a small remittance was added as an inducement to behave and try to make his own way and marry well enough so as not to embarrass the family or his regiment . in some cases , it was regimental orders that a young gentleman stay single until he was a major .

YEs - a key distinction = thanks!

Oh please don’t associate this amazing book with the 2005 movie. That movie might have been good on its own, but was nothing like the book. It was fundamentally different and had huge errors regarding culture and the over all time period.

@@oldageisdumb well at that time when I got the movie I was only 10 and I never knew how inaccurate the movie was I just knew that it helped me understand the book better which was nice! 😂 in my opinion I love the movie! But I agree that the book is so much better!!

@@emilym8530 hi Emily. I hope you’ve had a chance to watch the 1995 Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth version of the movie. It’s excellent and much closer to the book.

The fact that she and Jane were considered local beauties and "belles" might explain her confidence. Otherwise, she would live with her mother in more or less poverty.

Jane Austen herself refused to marry a rich young man for reasons she only knows, and she was way older and plainer than Lizzy

I think she inherited the trait for ignoring uncomfortable truths from her father who never seems concerned about the future of his daughters at all, until Lydia was actively destroying her whole family’s reputation. But as the title suggests, she wasn’t only prejudiced (just like Darcy) but also had a lot of pride and the proposals from Collins and Darcy were so condescending, she just couldn’t ignore such insult. I admire her poise during the rejection scenes, especially hers of Darcy in the 1995 adaptation. An absolute Queen 👑.

And this is the rebellion that Austen is representing in her novels.

simple answer is - she rebuffs them because it advances the plot

That's very kind of you!

WOW! Thanks for sharing. I think of my grandmother (who was a mom-figure AND hero of mine). She had no choices and needed to leave school at 12 to care for her family after her mom died. Anyway - thanks for the feedback.

change comes slowly - my mother was born in 1939 - she was their first child and my grandparents expected a son - so much so that they only had a boy’s name picked out - when they were introduced to their daughter - they were so disappointed that they left her with a feminine version of “her anticipated brother’s name” = Elma Georgina = have always wondered what kind of fella Elmer George would have been

Thanks. I love it too:)

I think Pride and Prejudice is considered classical literature rather than historical fiction. There's a certain difference

Most definitely agree. Another era is like another culture - if you are going to travel there, you must respect their conventions and refrain from projecting your own. 'When in Rome . . .'

Thanks - I edited the video description. :)

I get how the entail works. So is it for perpetuity, never to be changed? That seems harsh.

@@paulaprice493 Apparently it could not be changed. I watched the first season of Downton Abbey, and that was all about the entailment of the huge, wealthy estate and mansion. The leader of the family has no son, and when he dies a cousin will get the estate through entailment. And the daughters need a wealthy husband to avoid becoming poor when the father dies. The characters are upset about the entailment, but apparently it cannot be revoked or changed, the law was the law, it seems. I have not seen the rest of the episodes, so I do not know how it ends. But there was a lot of concern about the daughters and their need for a husband. I suppose the series was inspired by Austen, or perhaps that sort of issue is common for novels and films about English society.

@@paulaprice493 Yes the Entail is for perpetuity. Unless there is no male heir, then Mister Bennet can do whatever he likes with the property. But in this case there is a male heir, Mister Collins

@@paulaprice493 Entails tended to protect the core landholdimg from beimg gambled away or lost via speculative investment usimg the land as collateral. Gambling was extraordinarily foolishly done by young heirs but an entail protected the core asset for future generations. Bank of England was created to protect England against a king's reckless spending.. it funded a war without giving the cash direct to the king...

That's very kind - good luck!

Love Georgette Heyer. Read them years ago in the 1950s and 60s. Still go back to them occasionally. She also wrote a number of very enjoyable mysteries.

@@paulaprice493 : OMG! Another Georgette Heyer fan! You read them back in the day when she was writing them. I started in 1976-1977 when I lived in a tiny town in northern Minnesota and the mobile library stopped in front of my house. I was snowed in and also pregnant. Her books were a great escape.

@@susanmercurio1060 I was living in Toronto Canada. My library bookmobile came on Saturday but it was maybe a half mile away. I so looked forward to it. Georgette Heyer was a big part. And Agatha Christie. And lots of historical novels. Then I would go to the encyclopedia to find out what really happened.

​@@paulaprice493 : I don't care for mysteries much, but I used to go to the library to find out what really happened, too (that was after I moved to the Twin Cities). Only I looked up the books she listed in the bibliography, if any (An Infamous Army). Or other historical non-fiction books. P.S. I lived in northern Minnesota and the bookmobile stopped right in front of my house! That's how I became familiar with Georgette Heyer: browsing for books to get through the winter.

Thank you so much for this personal and thoughtful reflection. Please keep in touch:)

@@jaypawlyk3020 Of course!

That's very kind of you!

I'm on it! :)

Thanks for your feedback. Happy reading!

Close -- it was the Bingley's father or maybe grandfather who made his money in trade. The three Bingley children were evidently educated to be part of the wealthy, leisured class. But yes, their money *did* come from trade, but what trade it was is never mentioned, I don't think.

@@haplessasshole9615 That's what I meant haha. Not neccessarily Bingley but just his family in general. And I don't remember reading anything about what kind of trade business their family was in either... but I'm curious about it now lol

Old Money v. New Money is definitely one of the many themes in Austen's P&P.

@@Vexmybeloved_ given the times, there was at least some suggestion of slavery; not necessarily the slave trade directly, but profits that emerged from trade with the Americas.

@@sharongelfand5065 It is said that his family is from the north, so they probably were in the textile industry - but they had to buy the cotton somewhere, so...

Awesome! Keep me posted on your reading!

Try it in your funderwear!

Second son into the Army. Third son into the church

@@petermacleod5710 hahaha

Sense and Sensibility pretty much deals with this, in the dynamics of Edward and his older brother.

Austen's own brothers, same thing. Oldest got the father's living and others went into the navy etc. And one became an admiral, interesting, her own life situation is reflected in her novels.

@@petermacleod5710 Most definitely, as shown in many a noble family of the time.

Thank you. Keep me posted about your reading:)

Thanks - fixed this in the video description.

SO nice of you. Keep in touch and good luck with your reading:)

keep me posted on your reading:)

I'm on it! Thanks for the feedback!

If you read Emma you can see that a wealthy unmarried woman had plenty of status. But the economic setup made a wealthy woman very rare. Interestingly Anne de Burgh is a wealthy young woman in P&P

Other way around. Women had almost no legal rights, but could have emotional sway over the decisions her husband made, who did have legal rights. So a married woman kind of had legal status, at least sway. Her husbands status in the peerage determined who automatically had to obey him. So a married woman’s legal status determined her social status.

@@ariadnepyanfar1048 an unmarried woman could hold property on her own name

Yes, you’re right in most respects. Women were told from a very young age that their one purpose in life was to marry and have heirs for their husband. Spinsters were to be pitied and even a rich spinster didn’t hold much status even if she wasn’t pitied as much. A spinster could keep whatever money and property her family had left her and could run a business but banks would be very reluctant to give her a loan and most landlords wouldn’t sign contracts with women. So it sucked either way.

There was no such thing as middle class before the industrial revolution (which took place after the Regency Era). You were either upper class or lower (working) class. And unmarried women could have plenty of social status if they were wealthy enough, supported by a rich brother or other relative, or by a generous inheritance. They had relatively no legal status either way. It was all about finances - the anxiety around marrying off girls was not to get any sort of status, it was an anxiety about their financial future.

Thanks so much for the feedback. Happy reading!

LOVE the Colin Firth P&P!

thanks for your feedback :)

Thanks:)

Exactly!

Thanks - keep me posted about what you think of the novel.

That's very kind of you. I'm glad you enjoyed it:)

THanks for the feedback!

Exactly- this is one reason why Lizzie is so impressed when she sees Darcy's estate and meets his servants and sister. The way they are run and managed, and his relationships with the housekeeper and his sister, reflect on him.

@Jonathan Parks Then you have to manage the estate agent.

Your description somewhat contradicts the definition of a gentleman as someone who doesn’t work and doesn’t have to.

A very important point of view. An enormous amount of responsebility for a very young man - because he has to guarantee it prospers and does not just fall apart like it would maybee in other hands.

SO glad you like it (and that the video helped). Keep me posted on your thoughts about the entire novel once you finish it!

Interesting idea! I'm currently researching for a book I'd hope to write on teaching the Odyssey in the 21st century. I'd love to do one on P&P too!

@@jaypawlyk3020 I've never read Homer, so I'm interested to see if I can relate to his writing. Austen is my absolute favourite though. I love to hear John Mullan enthuse about her genius 😂

@@ellie698 Homer and Austen - quite wildly different; however, Emily Wilson's translation (I find) to be quite relatable. Keep me posted!!

I appreciate this reflection so much. I teach mostly privileged young men and while the Bennett sisters seem privileged to the modern reader, we know that they are one death away from homelessness. The issues of taste can also be an obstacle to my students (I mean, who REALLY cares about THIS kind of dress or THAT kind of song?) - they think that until they realize that they are no different. They too carefully choose what to wear on first dates and college interviews, they too carefully curate different spotify playlists for different purposes. Anyway, thank you again!

That's really nice of you - thanks:)

Just wanted to say that I love Georgette Heyer novels. It is good to see her mentioned here.

I really wish someone would make films of Georgette Heyer’s books. They are every bit as good, even better than, gasp, Austin’s.

Also love Georgette Heyer. Also her mysteries. I still check them out of the library from time to time. I once owned almost all of her Regency romances, loaned them to a friend and never saw them again.

@@paulaprice493 I had them all in paperback but read them over and over since the 1960s that that they fell apart. Now have them all in hardcover.

Exactly. Great books are never "about" any one thing!

You're very kind. Keep in touch!

Thanks - I fixed this in the video description.